Dr. Ambra Calo
Australia National University Visiting Fellow
Email: ambracalo@yahoo.com
I have suggested (Calo 2020) that Durga Mahisasuramardini (Durga slaying the buffalo demon) may have belonged to the Tantric Buddhist pantheon of 11″ century Bali, as part of an 11″ century renewed wave of transmission from the Pala Empire (8″-12″ centuries) Tantric Buddhist mahavihara of the northeastern Indian subcontinent to Indonesia (Fig. 1. Map). This based on the presence of 11″-12″ century Durga statues in Balinese temples, in co- occurrence with similarly dated Buddha or Bodhisattva statues belonging to Tantric Buddhism, also present in several other temples during this period (Figs. 2-3), as well as on the similarity between the largest Durga statue in Bali and a contemporaneous Heruka statue from a Tantric Buddhist monastery site Sumatra, in turn with parallels in the northeastern Indian subcontinent (Fig. 4). The 11″ century is considered as having seen a “second wave’ of transmission of Tantric Buddhist teachings to Indonesia, which led to the flourishing of new developments lasting through the 13″ century (Acri 2016: 8).
Moreover, as pointed out by Hariani Santiko (1997), the perception of Durga appears to have been demonized since the Majapahit period, namely in the 14″ century Calon Arang ritual drama. This may not have reflected the 11″ century reality, but may constitute a later reinterpretation of the goddess and the Warmadewa Oueen Gunapriya Dharmapatni associated with Durga ritesin the same text. Tantric Buddhism, also known as Vajrayina and Mantrayana, is characterised, since its origins, by the integration of Tantric Saivic teachings within its Buddhist fabric. The earliest known example is an 8″ century statue found at the Buddhist monastery site of Tapa Sardar in Ghazni, Afghanistan (Taddei and Verardi 1978) (Fig. 5). She also appears on a terracotta plaguc of the 10-11″ century at the Tantric Buddhist mahavihara of Vikramasila in Bihar, northeast India (Sahai 1989: 128: Sanderson 2009: 117), one of the great centres of learning of the Pila Empire which were critical for the transmission of Tantric Buddhism to Indonesia.
Tantric Buddhism reached Bali over the 8-10″ centuries, based on the excavation of clay miniature stipas and round clay tablets of this date, the latter impressed with Tantric Buddhist mantras (sacred recitations) or figures of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas (Fig. 6) (Astawa 1997-98, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2018). The tradition then flourished during the Warmadewa dynasty (10″ — 11″ century), a period which has produced the greatest amount of Tantric Buddhist sculpture in Bali (Astawa 1997-98, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2018).
Six statues of Durga Mahisasuramardini are known from early temples in central Bali and on the northern coast. Mostare found in co-occurrence with statues of Buddhas or Bodhisattvas belonging to Tantric Buddhism, dated between the 10″ and the 12″ centuries (Fig. 7). These include stone statues of Buddha Aksobhya and the Bodhisattva Amoghapasa, and two bronze statues of Buddhas Vairocana and Ratnasambhava. The largest Durga Mahisasuramardini statue in Bali is keptin the Pura (temple) Bukit Dharma Durga Kutri, in Buruan village, in the central province of Gianyar, and is dated to ca. the 11″ century based on its style (Stutterheim 1929-1930). It is venerated to this day in association with Gueen Gunaprya Dharmapatni, or Mahendradatt1, wife of King Udayana of the Warmadewa Dinasty (10″ — 11″ centuries).
In the same central region of Bali where most of the Durga statues are found, other temples also contain 10-11″ centuries Tantric Buddhist statues and reliefs in co-occurrence with Saivic ones, as documented by Astawa. This attests to the importance of Tantric Buddhism in Bali during this period. These temples include the Mas Ketel, Goa Gadjah, Pegulingan, Gunurwan, Melanting Tatiapi, and Subak Kedangan temples, all located around the area of the Pejeng and Bedulu, and in the Tampaksiring area just to the north of Pejeng (Astawa 2007). This area was the main seat of power of the Warmadewa Dynasty (Hobart et al. 1996: 28), together with the Batur volcano area in
Kintamani regency, close to the northern coast. Astawa has discussed the early Buddhist statues in these temples contexts (Astawa 2014: 17-20, Figs 3-G: 2018: sections 2.1-2.8).
In the Mas Ketel temples in Pejeng, is found a hollowed stone cylinder (D: 50 cm, H. 22 cm) showing in relief four directional Buddhas in seated posture. @uoting Stutterheim’s idenrification (1929: 108, 1595 1930: fig. 10), the Buddhas are identified as Buddha Amithaba, for the west, in dhyani mudra (hand posture), Amoghasiddh4, for the north, in abhaya mudra, Aksobya, for the cast, in bhrimisparya mudra, and Rantasambhava, for the south, in vara mudra. In the Goa Gadjah temple, are found two statues of seated Buddhas Amoghasiddh4 and Amithaba, together evidence of a.now collapsed life-size rock sculpture of a stupa. In the Pegulingan temple in Tampaksiring are also found four statues of seated directional Buddhas, identified as Buddha Vairocana in dharmacakra mudra, Aksobya in bhimisparya mudra, Amoghasiddhi in abhaya mudra, and a fourth Buddha unidentified due to its fragmentary conditions. In the Melanting temple in Tetiapi village, west of Pejeng, is a statue of Bodhisattva Padmapani.
Durga Mahisasuramardini statues are widely known in Hindu contexts in early South Asia, beginning in the Kusina period (1” —4″ centuries AD) and becoming more freguent from the Gupta period (3″-6″ centuries) (Silvi Antonini 2005: 317). The earliest provenanced examples of the Mahisasuramardini iconographic form in Southeast Asia come from Central Javanese Saivic candi (temple) complexes of the 8″ — 94 century (Ariati 2016: 86-93). These include Gedong Songo, Dieng, the Siva temple of the Prambanan complex, also known as Loro Jonggrang (Bernet Kempers 1959: S9: Ariati 2016: 91-93), and Candi Sambisari (Girard-Geslan et al. 1998: 397, fig. 173). However, the Durga statues from Buddhist contexts in Java postdate the Balinese examples, being found in candis of the 12″—13″ century. These include Candi Singasari, where the iconography is primarily Buddhist (Fontain 1990: 158-595 Bernet Kempers 1959: 79-80, pl. 237), and Candi Jawi, the syncretic character of which is marked by the Buddhist stipa crowning its Siva shrine (Fontein 1990: 156-575 Kinney et al. 2003: 129-32). This earlier occurrence in Bali is likely to be significant. Other Balinese temples of the 10rh-11th century contain Tantric Buddhist sculptures alongside Saivic ones, as documented by Oka Astawa’s research over the past two decades, reinforcing the importance of Tantric Buddhism in Bali during this period (Astawa 1997- 98, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2018). These temples are located in the central Balinese region which was the main seat of power of the Warmadewa dynasty
The earliest archacological evidence for Tantric Buddhism or Vajrayana has been identified in the Swat Valley of northern Pakistan. Nearly 200 rock sculptures and stelae representing Buddha and Bodhisattvya figures associated with Tantric Buddhism, and dated to the 7″ and 8″ centuries, were found in the Berikot and Jambil areas of Swar by the Italian Archacological Mission in Pakistan (Olivieri 2016: 27, Callieri er al. 2000: 191-226). A few exceptions to the clearly Buddhist sculptures in Swatare a small number of sculptures representing Siva, Ganesha and Surya. The sites of Amluk-dara and Barikot in particular have produced carly 7″ century Buddha and Bodhisattva rock sculptures, and radiocarbon evidence from the Buddhist complex of Berikot gave a dating of AD 605-685, constituting the earliest known evidence of Tantric Buddhism (Olivieri 2016: 26-27).
The Swat Valley was the center of the legendary Uddiyana kingdom, which Tucci argued was the birthplace of Vajrayana (Tucci 1940: 1-12). It comprised also Kashmir to the east of Swat, and the Ghazni region of castern Afghanistan, to the west of Swat. Ghazni became tied to the Swat Valley during the Turki-Shahi Dynasty of Kabul (8”-9″ century) (Tucci 1977: 11). During the 8″ and 9″ centuries, Tantric Buddhism fourished in this region and in northeastern India, as documented chiefly by archaeological evidence from the Pala empire mahaviharas of Bihar and Bangladesh.. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence from this region indicates that Tantric Buddhism integrated Tantric Saivic deities into the Buddhist pantheon. Saivic statues in Buddhist context are also known from oasis sites along the Silk Road in Xinjiang and Uzbekistan (Silvi Antonini 2005: 317).
Tantric Buddhist teachings reached Tibet during the 8″ century across a trans-Himalayan route (Olivieri 2016: 21, 30) as well as western Indonesia and China. The Tibetan Vajrayana tradition did not include specifically Durga Mahisasuramardini in its pantheon. However, English (2002: 37, 40, 43-44), guoting Sanderson (2001), points to the formative influence of non-dual Saivism on the cults of Vajrayogini in the Cakrasamvara tradition of Tibet. In particular, she indicates that these rites were associated with the legendary Uddiyana kingdom, from where the tradition is believed to have been transmitted by Pad masambhava during the 8″ century. Indeed, the wrathful forms of Vajrayogini in Tibet, such as Vajravarahi, in dancing posture trampling on corpses, may bear similarity to the wrathful Durga Mahisasuramardini in terms of ritual significance (English 2002: 50-50).
The earliest known representation of Durga Mahisasuramardini in Buddhist context is a large, originally polychrome clay statue of an eight-armed Durga (original H: ca. 3 m), which originally stood facing a bejeweled standing Buddha statue (original H: ca. 3.7 m) in vihara 23 at the Buddhist monastery site of Tapa Sardar, in Ghazni, Afghanistan (Fig. 5). The statues are dared to the later phase of the site (late 7″-8″ century), corresponding to the formative period of Tantric Buddhism in the region (Taddei and Verardi 1978: 47- 57, Taddei 1974: 111-115: Taddei 1973, 1968, Verardi and Paparatti, 2005: Filigenzi 2009, Filigenzi and Giunta 2015: 85). In vihara 23, the head of the Durga (H: ca. 63 cm) was found toppled over at the feet of the Buddha, and vice versa, the Buddha’s head (H. 72 cm) was at found at the base of the Durgz’s statue, showing the buffalo demon. The find of an apparently Hindu deity in a Buddhist monastery context at Tapa Sardar was first discussed as an anomaly. Taddei (1973: 203-212), who excavated the site, and Silvi Antonini (2005: 313-326) have considered whether the Durga at Tapa Sardar was a Hindu deity or a local Buddhist reinterpretation of it, and if it was to be interpreted as an indication of the tolerant character of the Buddhist teachings at the site, allowing for the inclusion of a Hindu deity. I suggest that the sculpture can be interpreted as representing the conversion of Tantric Saivic deities within the newly forming Vajrayana tradition since its origins in this region.
Hindu deities in Buddhist context are also known archaeologically from the Pala Empire (eighth-twelfth centuries) mahdviharas of Vikramasila and Somarapura in northeastern India, which showed marked evidence of Tantric Buddhist practice, and from where the tradition was transmitted to Southeast Asia. The mahavihara of Vikramasila in Bihar is dated from the 9″ to the 12″ centuries. It was a major centre of Tantric Buddhist learning, together with the other mahaviharas in the region, namely Nalanda, Somarapura, Odantapuri, Trikatuka, and Jagaddala. It was destroyed in 1193 AD by Islamic conguest of Khalaj tribes, previously subject to the Ghaznavid Empire. Archaeological excavations at the site of Antichak, idenrified as the Vikramasila monastery, by Patna University berween 1960 and 1969, and later by the Archaeological Survey of India berween 1972 and 1982, have revealed a large sguare monastery with a two-stepped stupa with cruciform plan at its center. Large amounts of’ terracorra plagues decorating the-terrace walls of the stupa represented both Buddhist and Hindu deities, including Durga Mahisasuramardini, together with Siva, Parvati, Bhairava, Ganesha, Visnu and Surya (Sahai 1989: 128: JAR 1979: 7-8, Sanderson 2009: 117, note 258). Durga also appears in the Tantric Buddhist textual sources, not in her Mahisasuramardini form but mounted on a lion, in the SarvadurgatipariSodhanarantra, on which commentaries were written by two Indian teachers associated with Vikramasila (Skorupski 1979: 8-9, 77).
The evidence from Vikramasila and other mahaviharas indicates that the presence of originally Saivic deities may have been a formative characteristic of the carly Tantric Buddhist tradition. Hence the presence of the 8″ century Durga statue at Tapa Sardar, rather than being an anomaly, may constitute additional evidence of this early development. It was this form of the teachings, characterized by their incorporation of Tantric Saivic elements into a Buddhist ideological fabric, which was transmitted to western Indonesia, Angkor in Cambodia, and Champa in central Vietnam (Sanderson 2009: 122), regions which in turn were in contact with each other. On the syncretic nature of Tantric Buddhism transmitted to Java, Sanderson points to the ideological inter-textuality of Buddhist and Saivic religious texts, such as the Buddhist Tantric Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan and Kalpabuddha and the Saivic Jhanasiddpanta.
The earliest excavated evidence of Indian religion in Bali came in the form of clay miniature stupas and round clay tablets impressed with Tantric Buddhist mantras in Sanskrit, which have been translated by Goris (Astawa 2014: 17), or with Buddha and Bodhisattva figures, dated between the eighth and the tenth centuries at the sites of Kalibukbuk, Pejeng and Pegulingan in northern and central Bali. These finds in Bali parallel the excavated evidence from the Buddhist site of Gudul-I Ahangaran, in the Ghazni region of eastern Afghanistan. Taddei (1970: 73) has discussed the Gudul-I Ahangaran clay miniature stupas in relation to the ones excavated at the site of Tapa Sardar, also in Ghazni. He pointed out that the Ghazni miniature stupas are characterized by a cone-shaped base, a feature which is also found in Tibetan examples described by Tucci, relatively dated to the 10″ century (Tucci 1932), but not in the other known examples from India and Central Asia. At Gudul-I Ahangaran, the cone-shaped miniature stupas were excavated in association with round clay tablets impressed with Buddhist Sanskrit mantras or Buddha or Bodhisattva images, which parallel closely the Balinese evidence for cone- shaped miniature stupas and impressed tablets (Fig. 6).
The first clay miniature stupas and impressed round tablets in Bali were found in 1920 at the Penataran Sasih temple in the village of Pejeng, and at the Pegulingan temple in Tampaksiring, just to the north of Pejeng, both in Gianyar regency in central Bali (Astawa Astawa 1997-98, 2000, 2006). Later excavations in 1991 at the site of Kalibukbuk near the northern coast, with access to long-distance maritime traffic, by the Bali Institute of Archacology, produced 90 miniature clay stupas (H: 6-7-8 cm, W: 5.5-8 cm) and eight round impressed clay tablets (D: 3 cm). Excavations at Kalibukbuk revealed remains of a stupa brick structure with sguare base (2,60 x 2,60 m), and another octagonal brick structure (W: 8 m) (Astawa 1997-98). Five miniature stupas (H: 22 cmy W: 15 cm) were found inside the stupa structure. This practice is also known from the stupas in Tibetan contexts discussed by Tucci. Later excavations at Kalibukbuk gave more miniature stupas for a total count of 142 (Astawa 2006: 64). The relative dating of the site from the 8″ to the 10 centuries is based on epigraphic and stylistic analysis of the finds. The Kalibukbuk miniature stupas and tablets are currently kept in the Bali Provincial Museum in Denpasar, and in the Gedong Arca Museum in Pejeng, where the Pejeng and Pegulingan examples are also kept.
These clay stupas and tablets represent the first phase of transmission of Tantric Buddhism to Bali, and are contemporary with major temple complexes in, which show marked evidence of Tantric Buddhist practice, architecturally as well as in sculpture. These include the 8″ century mandala-shaped Candi Borobudur and the Candi Sewu complex in central Java.
The largest (H. including pedestal: 2,2m) and likely earliest known Durga MahiSasuramardint statue in Bali can be dated to the 11″ century based on its style, and is kept in the Bukit Dharma Durga Kutri temple in Buruan village, in Gianyar. The statue is venerated to this day in association with the Warmadewa @ucen Gunaprya Dharmapatni, or Mahendradattha.
The six-armed slender figure of Durga Mahisasuramardini stands over the slain buffalo demon holding a chakra (wheel), kartika (crescent- shaped knife), sakti (spear), sara (arrow), danus (arc) and sangka (shell) attributes (Badra 2007:54-59). Stutterheim (1929: 116-121: 1930: fig. 27) placed the statue in his group dated between the 10″ and 13″ centuries, fitting with a likely 11” century date. The figure’s dynamism is increased by the rendering of her fowing draped garment. Below the Durga statue’s pavilion, another pavilion named Siwa-Buddha pavilion, contains a statue of Buddha Aksobya (Fig. 2 – H. 38,5 cm) dated by Stutterheim to about the 10″ century (1929: 109-132: 1930: fig. 1).
Stylistically, the Bukit Dharma Durga differs from all the other known statues of the deity in Bali and Java, while it bears resemblance to an 11″ century statue of the Tantric Buddhist wrathful god Heruka (H. ca.1.2 m. Fig. 4), or Hevajra, which was found in the Bahlal II temple of the Buddhist complex site of Padang Lawas in north-central Sumatra (Perret 2014: 21, 67, 370-372: Bernet Kempers 1959: 76-77, pl. 228). The site has given marked evidence of Tantric Buddhist practices and is dated from the 9″ to the 13″ centuries. East Javanese stylistic connections with Padang Lawas have been discussed by Klokke (2014: 127-146). The Padang Lawas Heruka statue is portrayed in dancing posture, originally likely dancing over a corpse (Bernet Kempers 1959: 77). The god’s attributes are typically a vajra (thunderbolt or diamond ritual weapon) and a kapala (skull).
The Padang Lawas Heruka’s dynamic dancing posture, its rather slim angular limbs, and its flowing drapery bear resemblance to the rendering of the Bukit Dharma Durga statue, as opposed to the softer rounder features of the other known Durga Mahisasuramardini statues known from Balinese and Javanese temples. Heruka is an important deity for the understanding of the interrelationship of Saivic teachings and Tantric Buddhism. According to Sanderson (2009: 156), “Heruka’s firstappearance in the Mantrayana isin the Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha, where his name appears in a Mantra for the drawing of all the (Saiva) Mother-goddesses into Buddhism, and it is thar, with the insertion of asingle syllable, that is adopted as the Mantra of Heruka in the Sarvabuddhasamayogadakinijalasamvara.” In particular, it is significant that both Heruka and Durga Mahisasuramardini are wrathful deities associated with rites in cremation grounds.
Heruka is also mentioned in the circa 11″ century Saivic Tantric text Kalikapurana, where he is associated with Siva and Sivalingas (Kooij 1974: 163). This, according to Kooij, could parallel his association with Aksobya in Buddhism. In light of this association berween Heruka and Buddha Aksobya, it seems significant that a statue of Buddha Aksobya is also found in the Bukit Dharma temple in Bali in co-occurrence with the starue of Durga Mahifasuramardint. A stone relief of Aksobya together with reliefs of the other directional Thathagatas (Buddhas) Ratnasambhava, Amitibha and Amoghasiddha are also found in the Pura Mas Ketel in Pejeng, and another statue of Aksobya is known from Pura Pegulingan in Tampaksiring just to the north (Astawa 2014: 19-20).
Bauze Picron (2014: 111-112) points out that the closest parallels for the Padang Lawas Heruka are two 11″ -12” century statues found in Comilla, in southeastern Bangladesh, and she discusses a network extending across the Bay of Bengal during this period. Such network would have reached north-central Sumatra either directly by sea, or via Myanmar and the Thai-Malay Peninsula. A possible 11″ century further extension of this network from Sumatra to Bali would explain the parallel style of the Padang Lawas Heruka and the Bukit Dharma Durga.
Apart from the Durga statue in the Pura Bukit Dharma, other five statues of the deity are still venerated in early temples. Such temples appear to be representative of what I argue was an early “Buddha-Siva’ tradition, characterized by a predominat Tantric Buddhist aspect within the syncretic tradition during the Warmadewa Dynasty. Three Durga Mahisasuramardini statues are found respectively in the Puseh Kutri, Pejaksan, and Semuan Tiga temples in the area of Pejeng and Bedulu villages in central Bali, the seat of the Warmadewa Dynasty, and two in the Puseh temple of Tejakula village on the northeastern coast.
A second smaller starue (H. 63 cm) of an eight-armed Durga Mahisasuramardini, missing large part of the lower section, is keptin the Pura Puseh Kutri (Fig. 7), in the same temple complex of the Pura Bukit Dharma. Stutterheim (1929: 128-129, 1930: fig. 28) placed itin his 10” to 13″ centuries group of statues. In style however, this statue differs from the larger Bukit Dharma Durga statue. In the Pura Puseh Kutri is also kept a statue of an sight-armed Amoghapasa Bodhisattya (H. 79 cm), a form. of Avalokitesvara (Astawa 2007: 47, Stutterheim 1930: fig 29), which appears to also be datable to the 11″ century based on style. Statues of Amoghapasa hold an important place in early Tantric Buddhist sites in western Indonesia, as discussed in depth by Reichle (2007: 85-131), with special reference to Sumatra. She argues that Amoghapasa iconography shows the religious and stylistic influence of the Pala Empire on Indonesian Tantric Buddhism.
A third eight-armed Durga Mahisasuramardini statue (H. ca. 65 cm) is kept in the Pura Pejaksan (Fig. 7) in Bedulu. Its style again differs from the first two Durgas discussed above, and Stutterheim dated it between the 13″ and 14″ centuries (Stutterheim 1929: 150, 1930: fig. 47). Itis currently placed at the centre of an array of’ Saivic deities, including Ganesha, and statues of dignitaries or teachers. A fourth, two armed, stylistically coarser statue of Durga Mahi$asuramardini (H. ca. 50 cm) is kept in the large Pura Samuan Tiga (Fig. 7), also in Bedulu. In its pavilion, itis flanked by two sacred stones. Here, the Durga statue and each of the flanking stones are associated with a specific Ratu (@Oueen), reminiscent of the association, with a possible protective function, berween Gueen Mahendradatti and the Durga in the Bukit Dharma temple. The Samuan Tiga Durga is associated with Ratu Sedahan Ratna, and the stones with Ratu Pande and Ratu Pasek (ancientclan) respectively.
In the Pura Samuan Tiga are also kepr two bronze statues of seated Buddhas Vairocana and Ratnasambava (Astawa 2018: sections 2.1-2.8), which were not available for study at the time of myvisit. Interestingly, at the Goa Gadjah early Buddhist complex in the Bedulu area, two seated Buddha statues, of which only one remains, are also associated with a gucen, namely Ratu Petapan, pointing to an association between gueens, possibly as female protective principles also tied to the animistic cultural substratum, and early Buddhist statues. Two more statues of Durga MahiS$asuramardini, one cight- armed and the other one six-armed, are reported by Ardika (1991: 217) in the Pura Puseh of Tejakula on the northeastern coast (H. ca. 75 cm). The statues are found in co-occurrence only with Saivic deities at present. The Buddhist statues found in co-occurrence with Durga statues include of Buddha Aksobya in the Bukit Dharma Durga temple, Bodhisattva Amoghapasa in the Puseh Kutri temple, and two bronze statues of Buddhas Vairocana and Ratnasambhaya in the Samuan Tiga temple.
The Bukit Dharma Durga temple in Bali where the largest Durga statue is found, is believed to be the cremation ground of the Warmadewa Oueen Gunapriya Dharmapatni, also known as Mahendradatta (died in 1001 or 1011 AD), who is to this day associated with the Durga statue (Hobart et al. 1996: 28-29). The Oueen was a Javanese princess of the Sanjaya Dynasty (8 — 10″ centuries) of East Java, who married King Udayana Warmadewa of Bali. Her association with Durg1 rites and the perception of her as a sorceress and practitioner of black magic, is based on the later 14″ century Calon Arang ritual drama (Santiko 1997: 218-219), not necessarily representing the 11″ century reality.
The story of Durga slaying the buffalo demon is first narrated in the 6″” century Markandeyapurina. She appeared as a wrathful protective goddess, originating from a mountain of fire generated by the anger of’ Siva, Visnu, Brahmi and other gods, who were troubled by demons. She went to fight the army of demons riding a lion, and finally defeated their king Mahisasura, who took the form of a buffalo (Hariani Santiko 1997: 215).
Hariani Santiko pointed to the shift in the perception of Durga, from what she described not as Tantric Buddhist but as a main deity of Saktic Saivism, “who started out as a goddess who aided humankind and was worshipped in Tantric rituals” but that “became a demonic female r4ksasi”, in the 14″ century Calon Arang drama. Up to present within the Hindu Balinese tradition, although the perception of Durga remains as a wrathful protective goddess, there remain some ambivalence as for her association with black magic, which likely begun since the Majapahit period.
In her review of Singasari and Majapahit periods sculpture in east Java, Lunsingh Scheurleer (1998: 190, 196-197, figure 7) also has also pointed out that starting from the 13″ century Singasari kingdom, a shift is visible in sculptural features with greater emphasis on demonizing attributes of deities whose previous depictions were not characterized by the same demonic character. In particular, she examines a group of Durga Mahisasuramardini statues in Majapahit style in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, highlighting their greater demonic traits, compared with earlier representations of the deity, and in this East Javanese case, the Durga starues show an association with the local female demon Ranini through shared sculptural features.
The present and post Majapahit perception of Durga in Bali, and the greater freguency of the deity’s presence in Hindu contexts, have led to most studies on Durga, such as Ariati’s recent volume (2016) on the deity in the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia, to focus on the demonic character of the dirty in Hindu contexts. However, this approach , even if providing accurate descriptions of the deity in such contexts, overshadows her protective demon fighting significance in Tantric Buddhist contexts, to which IL argue the deity may have belonged when she first reached Bali.
The distribution of Durga Mahisasuramardini statues and reliefs in Vajrayana context across the Buddhist world, from 8 century Afghanistan and 9-10″ century northeastern India to 11″ century Bali — there in co-occurrence with significant amounts of Vajrayana sculpture until the 13″ century— suggests that Durga may have first reached Bali as a Vajrayana deity, within a tradition which had typically incorporated Saivic deities since its origins in the northern Indian subcontinent.
A shift in the Balinese religious tradition in the 13th-14th century is suggested by the changing evidence for Buddhism. The initial evidence dates to the 8th—10th century and is followed by substantial numbers of ca. 11″ — 12” century Buddha and Bodhisattva statues until the 13″ century, which sees a greatly reduced prominence of Buddhist statues. At this point the Saivic aspect becomes more prominent. The 144 century Majapahit reinterpretation, or demonization, of the role of Durga as highlighted by Hariani Santiko may be tied to this shift in the religious tradition of the Bali-East Java cultural sphere, possibly in turn influenced by changes in political power.
Close similarities between the miniature stupas and tablets at sites dating to the 8th—10th century in both the Ghazni region of Afghanistan and Bali suggest links between the regions. The stylistic parallel berween the 11″ century Durga Mahisasuramardini statue in the Pura Bukit Dharma in Bali and a contemporary Heruka statue from the Tantric Buddhist monastery site of Padang Lawas in north-central Sumatra, which itself finds close parallels in Bangladesh, provides more insight into 11″ century networks connecting the northeastern Indian subcontinent with Sumatra and Bali, accounting for a renewed wave of transmission of Tantric Buddhist teachings.
Acri, A. 2016. Introduction: Esoteric Buddhist Networks along the Maritime
Silk Routes, 7″-13″ Century AD: 1-28. In Acri, A. (ed.), Esoteric
Buddhism in Medieval Maritime Asia. Networks of Teachers, Texts, Icons.
Singapore: ISEAS, Yusuf Ishak Institute.
ArpiKa, I W. 1991. Archaeological Research in Northeastern Bali, Indonesia.
PhD Dissertation. Australian National University, Canberra.
Ariati, Ni W. P. 2016. Journey of the Goddess Durga: India, Java and
Bali. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Asuer, F. M. 1980. The Art of Eastern India, 300-800. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Astawa A.A.G.O. 2018. Bukti Bukti Awal Agama Budha di Gianyar dan
Buleleng, Bali, Abad IX-XII. Kemetrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Online article. https://kebudayaan.kemdikbud.go.id/bpebbali/bukti-
bukti-awal-agama-budha-di-gianyar-dan-buleleng-bali-abad-ix-xii/
Astawa, A.A.G.O. 2014. Arca dan Releifs Dhyani Budha di Kabupaten
Gianyar. Forum Arkeologi 27, No. 1 (April): 13-22.
Asrtawa A.A.G.O. 2007. Agama Buddha di Bali. Khasanah Arkeologi.
Denpasar: Balai Arkeologi.
Astawa, A.A.G.O. 2006. Stupika Tanah Liat dari Situs Pantai Lovina
Kalibukbuk, Buleleng, Bali. Forum Arkeologi II Oktober: 11-24.
Astawa, ALA.G.O. 2000. Stupika dan Meterai Tanah Liat dari Situs
Kalibukbuk. Forum Arkeologi I Juni: 60-70.
AstawA A.A.G.O. 1997-98. Kalibukbuk, Sebuah Situs Pemujaan Agama
Buddha di Pantai Utara Bali. Forum Arkeologi 1 Juni: 8-17.
Bapra, I W. 2007. Atribut Senjata pada Arca Durga Mahishasuramardini
di Pura Bukit Darma Kutri, Blahbatuh, Gianyar. Forum Arkeologi No. I
(Mei): 52-60.
Baurtze-Picron, C. 2014. Buddhist Images from Padang Lawas Region
and the South Asian Connection. In Perret, D. (ed.), History of Padang
Lawas II. Societies of Padang Lawas (mid-9″ — 13″ century CE). Cahier
@’Archipel 43. Paris: Association Archipel.
BerNeT Kempras, AJ. 1991 (1977). Manumental Bali. Singapore: Periplus.
BeErNeT Kempras, AJ. 1959. Ancient Indonesian Art. Amsterdam: C.PJ.
Van der Peet
Bupiarsa, P. 1980-81. Stupika Tanah Liat Museum Bali. Denpasar: Proyek
Penembangan Museum Bali.
Carireri, P., Corrrva, L., Garti, M., Micarui, R., Moricamy, E. AND L.
M. Orrvreri (eds.) 2006. Valleys af Memory – Ancient People, Sites and
Images from Swat. 50 Years of the IsIAO Italian Archacological Mission in
Pakistan. Rome, Istituto Italiano per Africa e POriente (IsIAO).
Cartrerr, P., Corriva, L., Micmrui, R., A8Bpur, N. Anp L.M. OuLiviEri
2000. Bir-kot-ghwandai, Swat, Pakistan. 1998-1999 Excavation Report.
East and West 50 (1-4):191-226.
Caro, A. 2020. Durga Mahisasuramardint in Likely Tantric Buddhist
Context from the Northern Indian Subcontinent to 11th-Century Bali
-— Durga Mahisasuramardini dalam konteks agama Buddha Tantrayana
dari Subkontinen India Utara dan Bali pada abad ke-11. Pratu: Journal
of Buddhist and Hindu Art, Architecture and Archaeology of Ancient to
Premodern Southeast Asia, 1 (3): 1-20.
Encuisu, E. 2002. Vajrayogini: Her Visualizations, Rituals, & Forms-A Study
of the Cult of Vajrayogini in India. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
FiriGenz1 A. 2009. Ritual Forms, Cult Objects: Tapa Sardar at the Crossroads
of Places and Phases of the Buddhist Ecumene. In Filigenzi A. and R.
Giunta (eds.), The IsLAO Italian Archacological Mission in Afehanistan
1957-2007. Fifty Years of Research in the Heart of Eurasia. Proceedings of
the symposium held in the Istituto Italiano per U’Africa e |’Oriente Rome,
January 8th 2008: 59-75. Rome: IslAO.
FiLiGenzi, A. and R. Grunta 2015. The Italian Archacological Mission in
Afghanistan. In Cassar, B. and S. Noshadi (eds.), Keeping History Alive.
Cultural Heritage in Post-Conflict Afghanistan: 80-91. Paris and Kabul:
UNESCO.
Fontam, J. 1990. The Sculprure of Indonesia. Washington: National Gallery of Art.
GirarD-Ges.an, M., KLOKKE, M.J., LE BONHEUuRr, A., SrApTNER, D.M.,
ZALESKI, V., and T. ZEPHIR 1998. Art of Southeast Asia. New Yotk: Harry
N. Abrams Inc.
Hosarr, A, Ramseyer, U. and A. Lrrmann 1996. The Peoples of Bali.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kinney, A.R., Kzoxrr, MJ. and L. Krrven 2003. Worshiping Siva and
Buddha. The Temple Art of East Java. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I
Press.
Kinssercen, Van, I. 1875 (photo). In Album Ankersmit II / Van Kinsberg
met foto’s van monumenten van Java (RP-F-2005-159). Amsterdam:
Rijksmuseum.
K.oxxe, MJ. 2014. The Padang Lawas Makaras and the Javano-Sumatran
Relationships in Art. In Prrrer, D. (ed.). History of Padang Lawas II.
Socicttes of Padang Lawas (mid 9-13″ century CE): 129-146. Cahier
D’Archipel 43. Paris: Association Archipel.
Kooyj, K.R. van 1974. Some Iconographic data from the Kalikapurana
with special reference to Heruka and Ekajata. In J.E. vAN LoHvizeN-
Dr Lrruw and J.M.M. UBaGus (eds.), South Asian Archacology 1973.
Papers from the Second International Conference of the Association for
the Promotion of South asian Archaeology in Western Europe: 161-170.
University of Amsterdam. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
IAR 1979. Indian Archacology 1974-75 -A Review. Excavations at Antichak,
District Bhagalpur. Bihar (15), 7-8. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey
of India.
LUNSINGH SCHEURLEER, P. 1998. Skulls, fangs and serpents: a new
development in East Javanese iconography. In Lobo W. and S. Reimann
(eds), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the European
Association of Southeast Asian Archacologists: 189-204. Berlin, Hull.
Orrvreri, L.M. 2016. Guru Padmasambhava in Context: Archaeological and
Historical Evidence from Swat/ Uddiyana (c. 8th century CE). Journal of
Buthan Studies 34: 20-42.
Perret, D. (ed.) 2014. History of Padang Lawas II. Societies of Padang Lawas
(mid 9-13″ century CE). Cahier D’Archipel 43. Paris: Association
Archipel.
Perret, D. 2014. The Sculpture of Padang Lawas: an Unpdated Inventory. In
The Possibility that Durga Mahisasuramardini May Have 421
Perret, D. ed., History of Padang Lawas II. Societres of Padang Lawas (mid
91.13″ century CE): 37-106. Cahier D’Archipel 43. Paris: Associacion
Archipel.
Perrer, D. AND H. Suracuman 2014. Middle Eastern Earthenware and
Terracotta from Si Pamutung.” In History of Padangh Lawas I. The Site
of Si Pamutung (9 century — 13” century AD), edited by Daniel Perret
and Heddy Surachman, 429-442. Cahier D’Archipel 42. Paris: Association
Archipel.
Rricure, N. 2007. Violence and Serenity: Late Buddhist Sculpture from
Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Samar, B. 1989. Archaeological Excavations at Antichak. Ajaya-Sri, Recent
Studies in Indology, Vol 1: 125-133.
SaNDERSON, A. 2009. The Saiva Age — The Rise and Dominance of
Saivism during the Early Medieval Period. In Einoo, S. ed., Genesisand
Development of Tantrism. Institute of Oriental Culture, Special Series 23.
University of Tokyo.
SANTIKO, H. 1997. The Goddess Durga in the East-Javanese Period. Asian
Folklare Studies 56 (2): 209-226.
SiLvi ANToninI, C. 2005. Considerations on the image of Mahishasura
Mardini of Tapa Sardar. Eastand West 55 (1-4) (December): 313-328.
SroRUpsKI, T. 1979. Durgatiparisodhana Tantra— Edited in the Sanskritand
Tibetan Versions with English Translation and Notes. PhD. Thesis. The
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
STUTTERHEIM, W.F. 1929-1930. Oudheden Van Bali. I, Het Oude Rijk Van
Pedjeng. Singaradja: Kirtya Liefrinck – Van Der Tuuk. Two Volumes, Text
(1929) and Plates (1930).
Tappri, M. 1968. Tapa Sardar: First Preliminary Report. East and West 18
(1-2) March-June: 109-124.
Tappri, M. 1970. Inscribed Clay Tablets and Miniature Stupas from Ghazni.
East and West 20 (1-2): 70-86.
Tanorr, M. 1973. The Mahishasura Mardini Image from Tapa Sardar,
Ghazni. In Hammond, N. (ed.) South Asian Archacology 1971: 203-212.
London.
Tapprt, M. 1974. A Note on the Parinirvana Buddha at Tapa Sardar (Ghazni,
Afghanistan). In J.E. Vanlohuizen-De Leeund and J.M.M. Ubaghs (eds.),
South Asian Archaeology 1973: 111-115. Leiden: Brill.
1422 Membaca Durga — Makalah Lecture Prambanan dan Arkeologi
Tapprr, M. and G. Verarpi 1978. Tapa Sardar Second Preliminary Report.
East and West, 28 (December): 33-135.
Tucci, G. 1932. C’odrten ets’a tsa nel Tibet Indiano e Occidentale. Indo-
Tibetica (Reale Accademia d’Iralia, Studi e Documenti 1), I: Roma, 1932.
Tucci, G. 1977. On Swat. The Dards and Connected Problems. East and
West 27 (1-4) (December): 9-103.
VeraRDi, G. and E. PaparatTi 2005. From Early to Late Tapa Sardar: a
Tentative Chronology. East and West 55 (1-4) (December): 405-444,
The Possibility that Durga Mahisasuramardini May Have 423
FIGURE CAPTIONS
(Photographs by the author unless otherwise stated)
Figure 1: Map of the region with Bali insert, showing the main sites discussed
in the text. Templates by CartoGIS, ANU, CAP.
Figure 2: Statue of Durga Mahisasuramardini in the Bukit Dharma Durga
temple (H. 2,2 m). From Arkeologi.web.id: http://reviewukm.blogspot.
com/2012/10/pura-dharma-kutri.html). Statue of Buddha Aksobya also
in the Bukit Dharma Durga temple (H. 38,5 cm).
Figure 3: Buddha statues and stupa relief fragment at Goa Gadjah. Below:
Reliefs of directional Buddhas on cylindric stone in the Pura Mas Kertel,
Pejeng. Lower Right: Bodhisattwa statue in the Pura Gunurwan, Bedulu.
Figure 4: Durga Mahisasuramardini statue (H. 2.2 m) in the Bukit Dharma
temple in Bali and the Heruka statue (ca. H. 1.2 m) at the site of Padang
Lawas in north-central Sumatra. Right: Heruka statue image (from Bernet
Kempers, Ancient Indonesian Art, fig. 228).
Figure 5: Tapa Sardar Vihara 23. The clay statue of Durga Mahi$asuramardini
stood facing the statue of the standing bejewelled Buddha. The respective
heads where found toppled near the base of the opposite statue. Modified
by the author from Taddei and Verardi, Tapa Sardar, Second Preliminary
Report, 53-55, 73, figs 11, 47, 75. Drawing of the Durga statue from
Filigenzi and Giunta, The Italian Archacological Mission in Afehanistan,
85, fig.9.
Figure 6: Clay cone-shaped miniature stupas and impressed round tablets
from the site of Gudul-I Ahangaran, in Ghazni (upper left box) from
Taddei, Inseribed Clay Tablets and Mintature Stupas, figs 9, 21, and from
the site of Kalibukbuk in northern Bali.
Figure 7: Right: Starue of Durga Mahisasuramardini in the Pura Puseh Kutri
(H. 63 cm). (Stutterheim, Oudheden Van Bali, fig. 28). Statue of Durga
Mahi$asuramardini in the Pura Pejaksan (H. ca. 65 cm). Coarser statue
of Durga Mahisasuramardini in the Pura Samuan Tiga (H. ca. 50 cm). sana MA On —san 2000